DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Based on the claim amendments and remarks filed on 3/5/26, the previous 112(b) rejections are withdrawn and the previous prior art rejection is withdrawn and a new prior art rejection has been set forth to address the claim amendments.
Claim Status
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because “a reagent storage chamber” in line 9 already has antecedent basis. The examiner suggests referring to “the” chamber.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable:
over Battrell et al (US 20090325276; hereinafter “Battrell”; already of record) in view of Kornilovich et al (US 20210170408; hereinafter “Kornilovich”; already of record) and in view of Falcon, R (US 6910797; hereinafter “Falcon”; already of record) alone or in view of Olbrich et al (US 20200173581; hereinafter “Olbrich”; already of record) or,
alternatively over Battrell et al (US 20090325276; hereinafter “Battrell”; already of record) in view of Kornilovich et al (US 20210170408; hereinafter “Kornilovich”; already of record) in view of Rogacs et al (US 20180043362; hereinafter “Rogacs”; already of record) and in view of Falcon, R (US 6910797; hereinafter “Falcon”; already of record) alone or in view of Olbrich et al (US 20200173581; hereinafter “Olbrich”; already of record).
As to claims 1 and 10, Battrell teaches a microfluidic processing system and method (Battrell; Fig. 1, 2-3, 4, 7, [26-27, 51-55, 81-85, 94]), comprising: a reagent delivery network including an inlet microfluidic channel (Battrell teaches an inlet channel as the channel to the right of 212/213; Fig. 2, [60-63]. Battrell teaches an inlet channel as the channel to the right of 304; Fig. 3, [69]. Battrell also teaches inlet just to the left of chamber 431; [81], Fig. 4.) fluidly coupled to an outlet microfluidic channel (Battrell teaches an outlet channel as the channel to the left of 212/213 and above 206; Fig. 2, [60-63]. Battrell teaches an outlet channel as portion after the valve on the right after section 340; Fig. 3, [70]. Battrell also teaches outlet just to the left of chamber 431; [81], Fig. 4) via a microfluidic cross-channel transverse to each of the inlet microfluidic channel and the outlet microfluidic channel, the microfluidic cross-channel including a valve and a reagent storage chamber configured to store a reagent, the valve between the inlet microfluidic channel and the reagent storage chamber (Battrell teaches a cross channel 213 which includes a reagent; Fig. 2, [60-63]. Battrell teaches a cross channel as the region of 330 that includes chamber 310/311 that includes a reagent; Fig. 3, [72, 133] Battrell also teaches cross channel 431 which includes reagents; [81], Fig. 4); a valve configured to redirect fluid through the reagent storage chamber (Battrell teaches a valve to the right of 213; Fig. 2, [60-63]. Battrell teaches a valve to the left of 310; Fig. 3, [69]. Battrell teaches a valve to control the flow to the right of 431; Fig. 4. Battrell teaches that the valves used can be surface tension vales or other valve types; [54, 55]); and processing microfluidics fluidly coupled downstream from the outlet microfluidic channel (Battrell teaches processing microfluidics downstream; Fig. 2, 3, 4).
Note: Instant Claims 1-9 contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “to…”, etc…). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
Although Battrell teaches a valve, Battrell does not teach the valve including a resistor positioned even with a constriction region and configured to redirect fluid through the constriction. However, Kornilovich teaches the analogous art of microfluidics with a resistor that is positioned even with a constriction region to control fluid through the constriction region (Kornilovich teaches inlet 828 with meniscus breaker 860 that is in the form of a resistor to provide fluid flow through constriction; [78, 82, 83], Fig. 13, 14A-B, see also [84-85]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the valve for controlling fluid flow from the inlet channel into the cross channel and reagent chamber of Battrell to include a resistor that controls fluid through a constriction region as in Kornilovich because Kornilovich teaches that using a resistor with a constriction is a known technique to provide the ability to control fluid flow through a chamber (Kornilovich; [42, 82, 83]) and because Kornilovich teaches that a constriction helps to control the meniscus of the valve (Kornilovich; [43]).
The modification of the valve, which can be a surface tension valve or other type of valve, which controls fluid flow from the inlet and through the cross-channel of Battrell to be formed from a constriction and resistor to control fluid across the resistor of Kornilovich results in a resistor positioned even with the constriction region to redirect fluid from the inlet and through the cross-channel, but does not specifically teach that the resistor is within the inlet microfluidic channel opposite the cross-channel. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the resistor that controls fluid across the restriction of the cross channel of modified Battrell to be located within the inlet channel opposite the channel, since using a valve to control fluid flow from the inlet and across the cross-channel would function the same (i.e. the valve would still prevent or allow fluid to flow from the inlet into the cross-channel) if the valve was located directly at the inlet channel intersection compared to if the valve was within the entrance of the cross channel since it has been generally recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.' Alternatively, Rogacs teaches the analogous art of using a resistor and constriction valve to control fluid flow, where the restrictor can be within or adjacent to the branched portion in order to move fluid (Rogacs teaches a fluid displacement device as a resistor that can be located at various locations to move fluid, where when the microfluidics are branched the resistor can be located within or adjacent to the branch; [23, 24 ,25, 27]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have rearranged the resistor for controlling fluid from the inlet to the branched cross-channel of modified Battrell to have been adjacent to the branch, opposite the cross channel, as in Rogacs because Rogacs teaches that the resistor can be located in various locations so long as it is close enough to assist in moving the fluid and that whether the resistor is in the branch or adjacent to the branch does not affect the operation of the resistor (Rogacs; [23, 25, 27]).
Although Battrell teaches a heater to heat the reagent chamber (Battrell; Fig. 3, [72]), modified Battrell does not specifically teach a chamber resistor on a floor of the reagent storage chamber between the constriction region and the outlet microfluidic channel. However, Falcon teaches the analogous art of a chamber for reagents (Falcon; col. 6 line 30-54, col. 7 line 7-27) with a chamber resistor on a floor of the reagent storage chamber (Falcon teaches chamber 105 with a circulator/resistor 125 on the floor in order to mix components; Fig. 11-12, col. 3 lines 1-21, col. 4 lines 19-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the reagent storage chamber that is between the contraction region and the outlet microfluidic channel and mixes components under heat of modified Battrell to include a chamber resistor to mix components as in Falcon because Falcon teaches that the chamber resistor helps to promote mixing and heating of components in the chamber (Falcon; col. 3 lines 1-21, col. 4 lines 19-65).
Modified Battrell does not specifically teach a second chamber resistor on the ceiling and opposite the floor resistor. However, without some statement of criticality or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the resistors in the chamber that mix components of Falcon in modified Battrell to be positioned such that at least one resistor was on the ceiling across from the floor because Falcon teaches that multiple resistors help to promote heating and mixing (Falcon; col. 3 lines 1-21, col. 4 lines 19-65) and this would enable the resistors to span across the chamber to provide the advantage of ensuring the entire contents were mixed since it has been generally recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.' Alternatively, Olbrich teaches the analogous art of resistors within the chamber where the resistors are located across from each other on opposite sides of the chamber, and can be located at various locations (Olbrich; [55, 57], Fig. 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have rearranged the floor resistors in the chamber of modified Battrell to have been on opposing surfaces as in Olbrich, the resulting combination being a resistor on the floor and opposing ceiling surface, because Olbrich teaches that placing the resistors on opposing surfaces helps to assist and remove liquid to clear the chamber (Olbrich; Fig. 12, [55, 57]). Further still, without some statement of criticality or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearranged the floor resistors in the chamber of modified Battrell to have been on opposing surfaces as in Olbrich, the resulting combination being a resistor on the floor and opposing ceiling surface, because Olbrich teaches that the resistors can be provided at any location within the chamber (Olbrich; [57]) and also because this would enable the resistors to span across the chamber to provide the advantage of ensuring the entire contents were accessed by the resistors since it has been generally recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.'
As to claim 2, modified Battrell teaches the microfluidic processing system of claim 1, wherein the processing microfluidics include surface-activated magnetizing microparticles contained therein (Battrell teaches an ELISA and PCR or just PCR microfluidic device, where the means for detecting includes magnetic beads and the processing includes thermal cycling which are each downstream of reagent chamber 402; [45, 81-85, 94] Fig. 4, 7).
As to claim 3, modified Battrell teaches the microfluidic processing system of claim 1, wherein the processing microfluidics include a thermocycling heater downstream from the reagent delivery network (Battrell teaches an ELISA and PCR or just PCR microfluidic device, where the means for detecting includes magnetic beads and the processing includes thermal cycling which are each downstream of reagent chamber 402; [45, 81-85, 94] Fig. 4, 7).
As to claim 4, modified Battrell teaches the microfluidic processing system of claim 1, wherein the processing microfluidics includes a fluid movement component to direct fluid within the processing microfluidics or to eject fluid from the processing microfluidics (Battrell teaches various outlets which would eject fluid and also teaches downstream pneumatic manifolds; Fig. 1, 2, 3, 4, [73, 76, 81]).
As to claim 5, modified Battrell teaches the microfluidic processing system of claim 1, comprising a sample-receiving port or chamber to receive analyte-containing sample fluid at a location upstream from where the outlet microfluidic channel is fluidically coupled with the processing microfluidics (Battrell teaches a sample port upstream from the outlet coupled to the processing microfluidics; Figs 1-4, 7, [57-59]).
As to claim 6, modified Battrell teaches the microfluidic processing system of claim 5, wherein the processing microfluidics includes a secondary inlet microchannel or port positioned downstream from the sample-receiving port or chamber (Battrell teaches various microchannels and ports; Fig. 2-4, 7).
As to claim 7, modified Battrell teaches the microfluidic processing system of claim 1, wherein the reagent storage chamber contains the reagent to be mixed or reconstituted by fluid passing through the constriction region and into the reagent storage chamber (Battrell teaches a cross channel 213 which includes a reagent; Fig. 2, [60-63]. Battrell teaches a cross channel as the region of 330 that includes chamber 310/311 that includes a reagent; Fig. 3, [72]. Battrell also teaches cross channel 431 which includes reagents; [81], Fig. 4. Battrell teaches the reagents are dried and are for various analyses; [26-27, 51-55, 133]).
As to claim 8, modified Battrell teaches the microfluidic processing system of claim 1, wherein the resistor is adapted to operate at a power density sufficient to break a capillary retention meniscus at the constriction region and deliver fluid from the inlet microfluidic channel and into the reagent storage chamber (The modification of the valve to control fluid flow of Battrell to be the resistor to control fluid flow through the constriction in Kornilovich has already been discussed above in claim 1. Kornilovich teaches the resistor to break the meniscus and deliver fluid; [42, 82, 83]).
As to claims 9 and 15, modified Battrell teaches the microfluidic processing system of claim 1 and method of claim 10, comprising multiple microfluidic cross-channels fluidically independently coupling the inlet microfluidic channel with the outlet microfluidic channel in parallel with each other, wherein the multiple microfluidic cross-channels include: the microfluidic cross-channel, and a second microfluidic cross-channel having a second reagent storage chamber; a second valve positioned along the inlet microfluidic channel at a second location to cause the fluid to flow through the second constriction region and into the second reagent storage chamber, wherein actuation of the valve causes the fluid to flow through the constriction region and does not cause the fluid to flow through the second constriction region, and wherein actuation of the second valve causes the fluid to flow through the second constriction region and does not cause the fluid to flow through the constriction region (Battrell teaches a second cross channel 214, which is a second reagent storage chamber, connected to the inlet via a valve on the right and to the outlet on the left; Fig. 2, [60-63]. Battrell teaches cross channels 213 and 214 connected in series. Battrell also teaches multiple cross channels; Figs. 3-4).
Although Battrell teaches a second valve, Battrell does not teach the second valve including a resistor to control fluid through the micro-fluidic cross channel which includes a constriction region. However, Kornilovich teaches the analogous art of microfluidics with a resistor to control fluid through the constriction region (Kornilovich teaches inlet 828 with meniscus breaker 860 that is in the form of a resistor to provide fluid flow through constriction; [78, 82, 83], Fig. 13, 14A-B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the valve for controlling fluid flow into the cross channel and reagent chamber of Battrell to include a resistor that controls fluid through a constriction region as in Kornilovich because Kornilovich teaches that using a resistor with a constriction is a known technique to provide the ability to control fluid flow through a chamber (Kornilovich; [42, 82, 83]) and because Kornilovich teaches that a constriction helps to control the meniscus of the valve (Kornilovich; [43]). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the reagent chambers with the resistor and constriction in modified Battrell in order to provide for increased throughout and high speed analysis, since it has been held that the mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP 2144.04 Section VI (B) and St. Regis Paper Co. v Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
As to claim 11, modified Battrell teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the fluid is an analyte-containing sample fluid and the reagent-containing fluid formed in the reagent storage chamber includes the analyte (Battrell teaches a sample port upstream from the outlet coupled to the processing microfluidics; Figs 1-4, 7, [57-59]).
As to claim 12, modified Battrell teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising combining the reagent- containing fluid with an analyte-containing sample fluid at or after introducing the reagent- containing fluid into processing microfluidics (Battrell teaches the reagents and sample are mixed to flow through the processing microfluidics; Figs 1-4, 7, and see claims 1/10 above).
As to claim 13, modified Battrell teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising moving the analyte along the processing microfluidics using magnetizing microparticles having an affinity for the analyte (Battrell teaches an ELISA and PCR or just PCR microfluidic device, where the means for detecting includes magnetic beads and the processing includes thermal cycling which are each downstream of reagent chamber 402; [45, 81-85, 94] Fig. 4, 7).
As to claim 14, modified Battrell teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising thermocycling the analyte within the processing microfluidics in the presence of reagent received from the reagent delivery network (Battrell teaches an ELISA and PCR or just PCR microfluidic device, where the means for detecting includes magnetic beads and the processing includes thermal cycling which are each downstream of reagent chamber 402; [45, 81-85, 94] Fig. 4, 7).
As to claim 16, modified Battrell teaches the microfluidic processing system of claim 1, further comprising: a sensor configured to monitor the constriction region; and a controller configured by machine-readable instructions to: actuate the resistor within the inlet microfluidic channel to redirect the fluid through the constriction region and into the reagent storage chamber responsive to receiving a first signal from the sensor indicating the presence of a capillary restriction meniscus within the constriction region, the actuation causing the capillary restriction meniscus to break; and actuate the chamber resistor on the floor of the reagent storage chamber to mix the redirected fluid responsive to receiving a second signal indicating the break of the capillary restriction meniscus (The modification of the valve for controlling fluid flow from the inlet channel into the cross channel and reagent chamber of Battrell to include a resistor that controls fluid through a constriction region by actuating the resistor as in Kornilovich has already been discussed above in claim 1. Kornilovich teaches that in order for the resistors to be actuated that they use a sensor that monitors the constriction and sends signals to a controller to control the actuation of the meniscus breakers; [82-83, 84-85]. Further, the modification of the reagent storage chamber that is between the contraction region and the outlet microfluidic channel of modified Battrell to include a chamber resistor on the floor as in Falcon has already been discussed above in claim 1. Falcon teaches the chamber resistor mixing the fluids (col. 3 lines 1-21, col. 4 lines 19-65), and this corresponding mixing would not be activated until the controller determined that fluid was in the chamber).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of copending Application No. 17876642 (reference application) in view of of Kornilovich et al (US 20210170408; hereinafter “Kornilovich”; already of record) and in view of Olbrich et al (US 20200173581; hereinafter “Olbrich”; already of record), and alternatively in view of Rogacs et al (US 20180043362; hereinafter “Rogacs”; already of record). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the reference application recites instant claim 1 features of a reagent delivery network, an inlet and outlet with a cross-channel, and a resistor positioned along the channel to direct fluid. The outlet-end portion of the outlet of the microfluidic channel of the reference application reads on the broad recitation of the instantly claimed processing microfluidics as the channel would enable fluid to pass through (process of fluid passing through). Claim 6 of ‘642 teaches a chamber resistor located within the reagent storage chamber.
‘642 does not specifically teach the resistor positioned even with a constriction region and configured to redirect fluid through the constriction. However, Kornilovich teaches the analogous art of microfluidics with a resistor that is positioned even with a constriction region to control fluid through the constriction region (Kornilovich teaches inlet 828 with meniscus breaker 860 that is in the form of a resistor to provide fluid flow through constriction; [78, 82, 83], Fig. 13, 14A-B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the resistor and constriction for controlling fluid flow from the inlet channel into the cross channel and reagent chamber of Battrell to include a resistor even with the constriction region as in Kornilovich because Kornilovich teaches that using a resistor with a constriction is a known technique to provide the ability to control fluid flow through a chamber (Kornilovich; [42, 82, 83]) and because Kornilovich teaches that a constriction helps to control the meniscus of the valve (Kornilovich; [43]).
‘642 does not specifically teach a second chamber resistor on the ceiling and opposite a floor resistor. However, Olbrich teaches the analogous art of resistors within the chamber where the resistors are located across from each other on opposite sides of the chamber, and can be located at various locations (Olbrich; [55, 57], Fig. 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the chamber resistor of ‘642 to have included plural resistors on opposing surfaces as in Olbrich, the resulting combination being a resistor on the floor and opposing ceiling surface, because Olbrich teaches that placing the resistors on opposing surfaces helps to assist and remove liquid to clear the chamber (Olbrich; Fig. 12, [55, 57]) and since it has been generally recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.'
‘642 does not specifically teach that the resistor is within the inlet microfluidic channel opposite the cross-channel. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the resistor that controls fluid across the restriction of the cross channel of modified Battrell to be located within the inlet channel opposite the channel, since using a valve to control fluid flow from the inlet and across the cross-channel would function the same (i.e. the valve would still prevent or allow fluid to flow from the inlet into the cross-channel) if the valve was located directly at the inlet channel intersection compared to if the valve was within the entrance of the cross channel since it has been generally recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.' Alternatively, Rogacs teaches the analogous art of using a resistor and constriction valve to control fluid flow, where the restrictor can be within or adjacent to the branched portion in order to move fluid (Rogacs teaches a fluid displacement device as a resistor that can be located at various locations to move fluid, where when the microfluidics are branched the resistor can be located within or adjacent to the branch; [23, 24 ,25, 27]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have rearranged the resistor for controlling fluid from the inlet to the branched cross-channel of modified Battrell to have been adjacent to the branch, opposite the cross channel, as in Rogacs because Rogacs teaches that the resistor can be located in various locations so long as it is close enough to assist in moving the fluid and that whether the resistor is in the branch or adjacent to the branch does not affect the operation of the resistor (Rogacs; [23, 25, 27]).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 3/5/26, have been considered but are moot because the arguments are towards the amended claims and do not apply to the current ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R WHATLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BENJAMIN R WHATLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798